Recipient
Durham Constabulary
Pin
Request correctionFirst report 21 Oct 2013•Latest report 17 Mar 2026
Reports, concerns and published responses
Policing · Police force. This page brings together reports naming this recipient and response statements clearly connected to concerns raised in those reports.
- Reports
- 5
- Published responses
- 140%
- Concerns addressed
- 9
- Stated actions
- 32
Naming this recipient
Found for named reports
Across all linked responses
Described in responses
Reports over time
Reports over time
Reports naming this recipient by issue year.
Evidence profile
Report topics
Share of this recipient’s reports compared with all other recipients.
Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.
Concerns and recipient responses
Statements from Durham Constabulary linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.
-
Concerns raised2
Failure to conduct an accurate and robust missing-person risk assessment
Failure to communicate critical missing-person welfare information to relevant officers
Responses linked to these concernsEach statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something this recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.3
-
Action
Implement a process for directly recording and sharing new or updated missing-person information with investigating officers and reviewing supervisors.
-
Action
Review the Missing From Home Policy and Guidance to address recognition of vulnerability, risk factors and appropriate responses.
-
Action
Provide updated training for staff conducting missing-person risk assessments on vulnerability, risk factors and appropriate responses.
-
Concerns raised4
Delays caused by supervisory review of negative “Right Care, Right Person” attendance decisions
Failure to account for mental health crisis team inability to enter locked premises when directing callers to mental health services
Failure to make a police attendance decision after repeated serious concerns from callers
Failure to authorise police attendance despite a reported real and immediate risk to life
Responses linked to these concernsEach statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something this recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.2
-
Action
Escalate any second call about the same person within 12 hours to a supervisor for immediate further review, with additional calls subject to the same process.
-
Action
Implement an initial intelligence-check process for every decision not to attend, followed by an expeditious supervisor review where non-attendance remains the decision.
Respondent positions A position is what this recipient says about the concern when it does not describe a specific action.1
-
Position
The information supplied during the 16:44 call did not indicate a real and immediate risk to life requiring police attendance.
-
Concerns raised6
Lack of clear and timely internal and external fall reporting
Failure to clearly document medical advice obtained after resident falls
Failure to promptly re-evaluate and amend care plans after significant events
Failure to provide effective, individually tailored monitoring measures for residents at high risk of falls
Failure to obtain timely medical advice after a resident fall
Failure to maintain accessible and retained resident records
Responses linked to these concernsEach statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
No linked response statementsNo action or position from this recipient is clearly linked to the concerns in this report.
-
Concerns raised3
Failure to condition firearms licensing delegation on adequate training
Absence of a mandatory requirement for role-specific firearms licensing training
Lack of nationally accredited training for firearms licensing staff
Responses linked to these concernsEach statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something this recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.1
-
Action
Provide annual approved-practice training and continuing professional development, with tutoring and mentoring for new firearms licensing staff.
-
Concerns raised2
Failure to conduct face-to-face meetings with certificate holders when making revocation decisions
Failure to clearly and directly communicate revocation decisions to certificate holders
Responses linked to these concernsEach statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something this recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.1
-
Action
Include value-adding face-to-face meetings with certificate holders in the structured firearms licensing review process.
Respondent positions A position is what this recipient says about the concern when it does not describe a specific action.1
-
Position
A face-to-face meeting is not considered necessary where it would add no value to a firearms certificate refusal or revocation.
Information checked against published PFD reports and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations
Data last updated 7 September 2026